The Washington critic., 1887-11-16
Important Letter From the Commits :
sicner of the General Land Office.
THE QUESTIONS AT ISSUE.
Wherein the Differences Arose Be-
tween Himself and Mr. Lamar.
Commissioner Sparks yesterday sent
his resignation to the President as fol
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
GENERAL LAND OpPICE

To The FreSidCnt.
The Honorable Secretary OF the Interior
advises me by letter, dated the llth instant,
In effect that he should, ON that date, pre-.
sent to you the alternative OF selecting a
new Secretary of the Interior or a new
Commissioner OF the General Land Once,
In view Of which | have felt called upon to
address you this letter.
Under the authority vested In the Com.
missioner by the laws and In accordance
with regulations and practice pursuant to
law, by which action is fret taken In the
General Land Ofllce In all matters relating
to public lands, had previous to septem.
ber, 1887, made adjustments Of certain rail-,
road land grants, two OF which, known as
the Omaha cases, had been specially di-
rected by the Secretary to report.
On October I, 1887, two decisions OF the
Secretary were rendered In the Omaha
cases, non.concurring In my adjustments
and overruliDg the authority on which they
were based. He directed me at the same
time to cause the grants to be adjusted in
conformity with said decisions. now infer
from bis published letter that these de.
cisions were not approved by the Official
law adviser for the Department OF the lu-
teiior.
THE POINTS AT ISSUE.
The point at issue related to the claim of
railroad companies to indemnity for lands
that, under railroad granting acts, were re.
served from the operation of those acts by
express terms OF the statutes.
Previous to 1875 lands that had been re.
served by the Government for Indian and
other purposes, and which were excluded
from the grants and from the operation OF
the granting acts, had been patented or
certified to the companies, both as granite A
lands and as indemnity, promiscuously
with other lands. This seems to have been
done In pursuance OF practice OF giving
railroad companies whatever they asked for,
apparently without much consider alton of
the restrictions and limitations of the grants.
In that year the title to large quantity OF
such lands In the State Of Kansas which
had been so erroneously conveyed to the
Leavenworth, Lawrence and Galveston
Railroad Company was decreed invalid by
the United States Supreme Court. Since
that date, or for the past twelve years, lands
that were reserved at date OF grant or at
date OF the definite location Of the roads, as
the case may be, have been regarded and
treated In the decisions and practice of this
Office and Department as excluded not only
from all the grants, but from the indemnity
basis under all grants wherein such re.
served lands are by the terms Of the law
"excluded from the operation OF the acts.n
THE OMAHA CASES.
The Secretary held In the Omaha cases
that the company was entitled to indemnity
for such lands. This decision, II adhered
to, will have the effect to take from the
people many million acres Of land within
railIoad indemnity limits, which, by our
advice and with your approval as expressed
In the Guilford Miller case, have been pro-
claimed to the country as restored to the
public domain.
The question Of the correctness OF these
decisions became, therefore, a matter OF
momentous concern. II they correctly de.
railroad companies. II they did not cor
rectly declare the law the lands belong to
the people. The Omaha decisions purport
to be founded up on the decision OF the Su-
preme Court In the case Of the Winona aud
81. Peter Railroad Company VS.. Barney
1l3 u. s., GlS), the assertion being made
that the 'plain language" of the Court In
that case seems to be conclusive of the
questions presented," and ai-o upon GER
tain rule of statutory inter- relation relied
upon as being an axiom OF construction.
Said decisions were further enforced by ref.
erence to an unreported decision OF the
United States Circuit Court for Wisconsin,
which vas said In the Omaha cases to bs
judicial construction which seems to leave
mo further room for discussion"
ERRORS or LAW.
1t appeared to me that the decision OF the
supreme Court In the Barney case was abso.
lutely silent upon the question decided In
the Omaha cases, and that not even the
0biter OF the court sustained these decisions
II also appeared to me that the question at
issue was not in the case decided by the Cir
cult Court for Wisconsin, and 1t seemed
that the rule OF statutory Interpretation
adopted in the Omaha cases was the oppo-
site OF the rule OF construction adopted by
the courts and laid down by law writer's.
was, therefore, profoundly convinced that
the Secretary had been committed to errors
Of law which, II brought fully to his per-
sonal attention, might be corrected.
REORGANIZATION ASKED.
1t is the practice OF the Department to
permit representatives of railroad com
panies and other private interests to apply
Tor reviews and rcconsideratiOns of de-
cisions when questions are decided against
such interests. l believed that, as the OIL
Ger of the Government having immediate
guardianship OF the public lands, and imme.
diate charge OF the Issuance OF patents un-
der all grants Of land by Congress, had at
least equal right with representatives of
private interests to ask the Secretary OF In
terior to reeXamlne o departmental de-
cision. And believed 1t especially proper
to express my views to the Secretary In
these cases because | had not, but would
have done so, In the original instance, II
had anticipated change Of ruling and de-
cision upon the point In question. AccoF l.
ingly ! waited upon the Secretary al per
sonally expressed to him my desire to have
o review of the decisions In these cases. He
suggested to me to let the matter rest Tor
the present, In which suggestion OF course
cheerfully acquiesced.
The formal application for review,
couched In most respectful terms, was com
pleted about October rs, but was not put
upon the official records and was not made
public. On November 10 / received a note
from the Secretary desiring me to present
TO him what had to say upon this subject.
My letter was accordingly signed and de.
llyefed to him on the llth instaut, with
necessary change OF date and other correc-
tions that had been made. A copy OF this
letter is herewith incosed for your iuspec-
tion and for your judgment, both upon sub
stance OF matter and upon official courtesy
OF form and expression.
Several Important questions were decided
in the Omaha cases other than the one re-
ferred to herein, which justly call for con-
slderation upon the point Of agreement
with or contravention OF decisions OF the
Supreme Court Of the United States, but
confined my application for review to the
question OF "lndemnity for lands excluded
from the operation OF the granting acts,"
that being OF overshadowing Importance.
In presenting this application Informed
the Secretary that II would not be made
public, unless by himself. Public attention
having now been called to the matter,
shall feel at liberty to furnish the press with
copy OF this letter, after 1t has been com
munlcated to you, and copy transmitted
to him.
1t is but Just to say that the published
communication, addressed to me and laid
before you, is no answer to my letter ap-
plying for review. The issue raised by me
was strictly one OF law. The presentation
OF the issue was strictly In the line of legal
argument. In the letter addressed to me
that issue Is not met, and the effect has
been to create the erroneous impression that
that | had refused to execute the Secre.
tnrX'6 official orlprR